UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS vs A RAJESEKHAR REDDY AND ANOTHER — CWP/14853/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 13-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010806652026

e-Filing Number

08-05-2026

Filing Number

CWP/29240/2026

Filing Date

11-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/14853/2026

Registration Date

11-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda

Coram

Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi , Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda

Category

4.11 - ORDERS AGAINST ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL(CIVIL) ( 328 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

    Adv. BHAVANA DATTA

  2. 2.Union of India and Others

  3. 3.Officer in Charge pay and accounts office

  4. 4.Officer in Charge pay and accounts office

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.A RAJESEKHAR REDDY AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.Union of India and Others

  3. 3.Officer in Charge pay and accounts office

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi,mr. Justice Deepak ManchandaView PDF

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the Union of India's petition without pressing it further, noting that the underlying Armed Forces Tribunal order was seven years old and based on settled precedent in Kultar Singh Chauhan v. Union of India. The petition was dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/14853/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of the Union of India's petition without pressing it further, noting that the underlying Armed Forces Tribunal order was seven years old and based on settled precedent in Kultar Singh Chauhan v. Union of India. The petition was dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner's counsel. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case